Should philosophers be obliged to study at least differential geometry, algebraic topology, general relativity and quantum mechanics before being allowed to make stupid claims about the metaphysics of reality?
I honestly can't take someone's opinion on metaphysics seriously when that person doesn't know more than elementary euclidean geometry from high school.
Other urls found in this thread:
...
There are 3 classifications of Philosophy
1. Classical
2. Existential
3. Empirical
Classic and Existential philosophers are the only ones that research metaphysics, but even then they use deduction and induction, weeding out presumptions.
Empiricists just ask for physical proof, and remain skeptical unproven mathematics.
The problem with metaphysics is that the majority of the field isn't discussion by intellectuals but by people that use fallacies in order to roleplay with escapism, and they due this via sophistry; more specifically via the "argument from ignorance" fallacy and conflation fallacies.
Telling retarded people that they're using fallacies is perfectly ok.
classic top lel
>general relativity and quantum mechanics
>stupid claims about the metaphysics of reality
lel
>muh philosophers are worthless
Literally Lawrence Krauss tier stupid
>I honestly can't take someone's opinion on metaphysics seriously when that person doesn't know more than elementary euclidean geometry from high school.
Almost everything discovered in math and physics in the past 10,000 years was done by people that don't know more than elementary euclidean geometry from high school. Every great mathematician you can name did their life work in euclidean geometry. Just because you are used to the geometry from everyday life doesn't mean it doesn't hold anymore new secrets for us to find. Todays high schools teach more advanced mathematics and physics than Aristotle ever knew, and he's the one that coined the term metaphysics in the first place.
Metaphysics just means "beyond physics." It literally refers to the books Aristotle wrote that were to the right of the physics books on his bookshelf. So, a knowledge of physics is of course preferred, but only because people that know how the world works are smart. But it is not required whatsoever. People like shakespeare or billy joel can discuss metaphysics too, and they probably do in their writings.
A good metaphysics question would be "do numbers actually exist or are they tools invented by the human mind?". You claim that one needs to know QM, GR and countless geometries to be able to answer this. But one doesn't even need to know math to answer this particular question. The only thing that one should know to answer this question is what the word "number" means.
If the question is understood, it is impossible for an answer to be wrong (as long as it is logical). This is what philosophy is all about, using logic to discover knowledge. You're committing a fallacy if you say only people educated in math/physics can do that. The only time this can fail is if empirical evidence directly counters classical logic. Then this is an issue for Epistemology, but that says nothing on that person's ability to contribute to metaphysics.
>Should philosophers be obliged to study at least differential geometry, algebraic topology, general relativity and quantum mechanics before being allowed to make stupid claims about the metaphysics of reality?
should scientists stop being retarded for having faith in scientific realism and the fantasy of ''''''''''''empirical proof'''''''''''''''''' and demanding to be paid because of their faith ?
Science Works.
define science
define work
show your assertion
before, this though, if you cannot handle rigor nor logic nor empiricism, just go back to facebook and plebbit.
A couple things. First, I am smarter than you. Go do all the practice problems you want, you still suck. Second, philosophers are generally smarter than physicists. Quantum Mechanics is fucking stupid. Everything we believe, we only believe it because it usually happens that way. So why should we not also believe that particles move faster than light? What would a probability distribution look like if it was constructed by a blind man listening to a bullet ricochet next to him?
lol no objective truth
lol everything is subjective
lol i am so deep
omg your perception shapes reality
lel lel lel everything is so meaningless
It literally doesn't hold any secrets. Euclidean geometry is a complete theory. Every statement can be proven or disproven.
>Pedantry
You know what the fuck I mean those terms are not ambiguous enough to need clarification.
This is why no one likes you fucks.
Holy fuck. THANK YOU. Finally a counter meme to this monkey posting shit.
>pic related
tecnically yes, but we all know that ain't going to happen. ever.
Go to any university's humanities department and talk to the philosophy majors.
kil self pls
Where did he say any of that? I interpreted his post as claiming that empiricism has its own problems and things like the problem of induction showcase that. The scientific method really says nothing about reality itself, it just provides us with well-fitting models of reality. The number of times that we've had to come up with newer, better models for phenomena we thought we understood should be enough to convince us to not assume that current scientific consensus should never be taken as some real "proof" of anything, just data to investigate and work with. If anything, what I love about science as opposed to more dogmatic systems like organized religion is it's skepticism and how the method invites us to keep trying to prove ourselves wrong.
Yeah because a majority of STEM undergrads clearly have such a great and in-depth understanding of the topics OP mentions, right?
"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum." - René Descartes
Physics is not that hard to begin with, so it doesn't stop them from making horrible mistakes. Nor is math stopping them.
Evidence:
Take Gary Weber, a physicist: youtube.com
We don't know if they are confused or plain lying, but they sure look like they believe their amateur bullshit.
The only thing that could stop them simply is raising their intelligence.
Doobo doobi doo.
Something tells me you've never read any serious work on analytic metaphysics.
Learn Latin you uneducated fuck.
>serious works
>analytic philosophy
Don't make me laugh.
Oh, I have, but the subject is complete nonsense.
It's new age bullshit because there is nothing empirical to test.
Conjectural circle jerks are the realm of sophistry, always.
Bring some empirical analytics to the table, and then we'll have an adult discussion.
actually they're right about valuing analytical philosophy.
see:
on the important distinction between types of philosophy
You should know then that analytic metaphysicians use logic in the same way that logicians, mathematicians, and computer scientists do. You should know that they take developments in physics into account when working on philosophical problems, you should know that those problems often intersect with foundational problems in physics. Just because not everything they do relies on empirical methods of investigation doesn't make it "new age bullshit" and "conjectural circle jerks" that amount to nothing more than sophistry. Those aren't always the types of problems they're working on.
>valuing
>analytical philosophy.
>analytic metaphysicians use logic in the same way that logicians, mathematicians, and computer scientists do
>he doesn't pray to Saint Kripke the prince of Analytic Philosophy every day
Modal logic, predicate logic, propositional logic, etc. Are you going to continue to mount a blatant display of your own ignorance?
>Should philosophers be obliged to study at least differential geometry, algebraic topology, general relativity and quantum mechanics before being allowed to make stupid claims about the metaphysics of reality?
yes. likewise, stemlords need to study philosophy before being allowed to make stupid claims about what philosophers said.
No because this is exactly how theories are born.
Have a purely hypothetical, philosophical idea - then back it up with mathematics.
But your books could sell just as easy without backing them with mathematics and have access to a wider public if you back them up with good writing - use scientific terms to fool people and get a somewhat approval.
Following your dumb way of interpreting reality: why wouldn't we assume information on your screen is not simply magic?
Kys quick
No one gives a shit about what philosophers have to say.
>>No one gives a shit about what philosophers have to say.
if so, then who gives a shit if a philosopher starts making mathematical or scientific claim?
since scientists believe in scientific realism, they are philosophers too.
you do not need math to have theory
that traveled fast
They do
Nah, you don't need any of that to flip burgers.